There are two patterns of development that in recent decades have changed the conditions for the Swedish constitutional regulation of freedom of the press and freedom of expression. Firstly, technological development has meant that the way in which opinions are disseminated and consumed has undergone a minor revolution. A clear shift from traditional media to the internet is taking place at an accelerating rate. On the other hand, the impact of international law at national level has increased significantly, in particular through the growing international judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition.

My focus is primarily on the impact of international law, but the challenges of technological development are so great that they cannot be ignored. The Swedish Freedom of the Press Act and the Fundamental Law on Freedom of Expression have been largely separate from the transformation of domestic law brought about by the impact of European law. In some respects, this seems reasonable. The principles on which the Swedish regulations are based constitute a clear constitutional core that cannot simply be waived with reference to international obligations.

However, developments show that the rules of the Constitution do not always give effect to the principles that constitute its justification. If the protection of rights is distributed inconsistently and in some cases does not even have an internal logic, is it really justified that the regulation prevents, for example, the rights protection of the European Convention on Human Rights from having an impact on the constitutionally protected area?